Yankees stadium plan faces a key test Tuesday

In this Oct. 29, 2013 file photo, Project Manager Chip Hayward, with C.H. Johnson Consulting Inc., presented artist renderings of what Yankees minor league baseball stadium would look like during the Ocala City Council Work Session. The County Commission will decide whether to put a tax issue for the stadium before county voters.

Published: Monday, December 16, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.

Last Modified: Monday, December 16, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.

Whether Marion County registered voters will get the chance to decide if they want a three-year, half-cent sales tax to pay for a stadium for the New York Yankees Class A minor league team could be decided at Tuesday's County Commission meeting.

In this Oct. 29, 2013 file photo, Project Manager Chip Hayward, with C.H. Johnson Consulting Inc., presented artist renderings of what Yankees minor league baseball stadium would look like during the Ocala City Council Work Session. The County Commission will decide whether to put a tax issue for the stadium before county voters.

Doug Engle/Star-Banner

Facts

Tune in

Those unable to attend can watch a live video of the proceedings at www.marioncountyfl.org. On the left center of the home page, click “Agenda/Minutes.” Once there, go to the Dec. 17 meeting and click “Video.”

Also, check ocala.com throughout the day for updates

The commission will conduct a public hearing on two ordinances concerning the temporary tax. One ordinance calls for a special election on March 18 to put the question to the voters by mail to decide whether they are willing to accept the tax.

The other ordinance calls for a special election on March 18 regarding the tax to be run in the traditional, non-mail manner.

The reason for the two ordinances is some County Commission members felt a special election in March likely would result in poor voter turnout, and an all-mail ballot would generate more votes.

The city of Ocala has negotiated a deal with the Yankees to move its farm team from Tampa to Ocala. But a stadium would have to be built, and a sales tax is seen as a way to fund that construction.

Part of the deal calls for the county to own the stadium so the Yankees would not have to pay property taxes, which would cut into its profits, if any. The city would lease the stadium from the county and sublease it to the Yankees, who would be responsible for operating and maintaining the stadium.

Initially, the city requested the county put the question of a five-year, half-cent sales tax that would generate an estimated $82 million in revenue on the ballot in a special election on March 18.

Of the $82 million projected to be raised, $60 million would be used for land for the stadium and roads, infrastructure, about 10 additional acres to be used by the Yankees for commercial development and building the stadium.

It was proposed that the remaining $22 million could be overseen by a citizen committee to be spent on infrastructure and economic development efforts.

But the commission nixed that proposal. Instead of a five-year tax, commissioners said they would possibly consider putting a three-year sales tax before the voters.

A three-year sales tax would generate sufficient funds for the stadium project. Any tax money collected in excess of the $60 million would be used for county infrastructure projects.

City Manager Matthew Brower said the city has been discussing alternative ways of funding the project in the event the county refuses to put the question of a sales tax to the voters.

Brower said the city is considering five or six other funding options its consultant developed during a feasibility study.

“We continue to vet this,” Brower said.

Asked if that would involve bonding the project, Brower said, “It would have to be. It would have to be some kind of financing mechanism over some kind of 25- to 30-year term.”

If the project is bonded, it could bypass the voters.

“It's too early to say what the city might consider,” Brower said. “The sales tax was the perfect solution. It allows us to fund the stadium in a three-year period without issuing debt, without interest costs. It's just the best fit for this project. Any bonding mechanism is going to cost millions in interest costs.”

Asked if private entities outside the city are discussing funding, Brower said, “Yes, I am sure there are.”

But he said he could not tell who they might be. He said the city has discussed a “bridge” loan with area bankers to help get the stadium construction started until the tax money started coming in January 2015. Such a loan would allow the stadium to be finished in time for the April 2016 baseball season.

City Council President John McLeod said the city is considering other options should the county not approve the referendum.

“If we have an alternative way of funding it where we don't have to put a tax on the citizens, we obviously would look at that,” McLeod said. “The only thing that would have to go to the voters would be a sales tax referendum, to my understanding.”

Asked if private entities are exploring other ways to fund the stadium, McLeod said: “I am sure our good friends at the CEP (Ocala-Marion County Chamber Economic Partnership) have been looking under every rock to do something.”

The CEP board has voted unanimously to support the stadium project.

When asked if he knew of any entities discussing alternative ways of funding the Yankee project, CEP Chairman Doug Cone said, “I have no comment. If there are discussions along this line, I am not aware of it at this point. I think (today's) meeting is going to be a definitive one for our community to see if this project will go forward, what the county does and ... the city's response, and if there are methods to bring the Yankees to town. That would be a discussion between city and county.”